MikeC:

You're right about dropping the par on a few holes if the club is worried about something being too easy or whatever instead of first thinking to add tee length. I've been saying this for more than a year. Basically NGLA is super lucky that they have three strokes to play with here (73 to 70--or a number in between) and the good news is they can do it on those holes really well without doing a thing to the architecture of those holes. I just don't know why Pat, for instance, doesn't  buy into that idea. For some reason he seems to think those holes would be too hard as par 4s. That to me doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If some of those par 5s are really too short and being hit in two so much that it's perceived they need additional length then why not just call them par 4s? If good players are hitting them in two all the time as par 5s then in effect they really play like long par 4s so why not just call them that and save both money and preserve the course's architecture as it is at the same time?

It's a win/win solution!

Mike Cirba & TEPaul,

Unfortunately, your focus has been confined to the obvious, the par 5's.

But added length has been needed in the past, and is needed now if certain holes are to retain their strategic elements.

# 8 is a perfect example.
It is imperative that the centerline bunkers be kept in play off the tee.

# 17 has similar requirements

# 14, 15, 18 and others might benefit as well.

Don't be so quick to stop the evolutionary process that has worked well at NGLA, in the past.

Matt Burrows,

When you look at creating an elevated tee, look at it in the context of the back of the lengthened 2nd tee, as well as the 1st tee.

Other tees also stand out as built up structures.

# 8 comes to mind, as does # 7 to a lesser degree.

I also feel that if you go behind every green and look back at the green and fairway, toward the tee, that you'll get a better perspective on the constructed nature of NGLA.

Clearly, the course reflects a manufactured effort, and I'm not so sure that creating additional manufactured structures (tees) that retain the feel of the others, while preserving the angles of attack, or slightly altering them, isn't in keeping with the design integrity of the golf course.

Just look at the change in the tee and angle of attack on the
OLD 8th and 12th tees versus the current tees.

The 16th hole tees probably have the most radical change in the angle of attack, yet they work well due to the configuration of the fairway in the drive zone.

On # 5, I agree that it is imperative to continue to provide the strategy created by the fairway and angled mid-fairway bunker.

Just look at a back tee in the context of the strategic play, and not in the context of the manufactured look that a new tee would present, and let me know what you think.

Remember too, that a lower tee would make the hole play longer, especially off the tee.

Eckstein,

Ideas regarding a golf hole don't reside solely within a club's property lines, and will rise or fall on their own merit.

Are you aware of my help/ideas with the 8th, 10th, 11th and 13th holes at NGLA years ago, or just making another absurd statement ?

Why don't you form a panel to help you come to a consensus with respect to your response ?

Why do you feel the need to hide your email address ?

And, lastly, why do you feel that they need YOUR help,
but not mine ?